Astronaut EDC

GarageBoy said:
" The centripetal force, the action, is balanced by a reaction force, the centrifugal (“center-fleeing”) force. The two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The centrifugal force does not act on the body in motion; the only force acting on the body in motion is the centripetal force. The centrifugal force acts on the source of the centripetal force to displace it radially from the center of the path. Thus, in twirling a mass on a string, the centripetal force transmitted by the string pulls in on the mass to keep it in its circular path, while the centrifugal force transmitted by the string pulls outward on its point of attachment at the center of the path.
Click to expand...

You know....this sound mysteriously like a cancellation effect. I will be damned!

And for some strange reason it sounds like it's axially related.

Who the hell knew!!!!

Once again we are consumed by three dollar words spewing forth.
 
710BMFAN said:
You know....this sound mysteriously like a cancellation effect. I will be damned!

And for some strange reason it sounds like it's axially related.

Who the hell knew!!!!

Once again we are consumed by three dollar words spewing forth.
Click to expand...


What it sounds like is a standard high school physics textbook, which is often concerned less with concepts, and more with giving the student the mathematical tools to pass his tests.

Half of the first semester of college-level engineering physics is undoing the damage done by high-school physics.

Seems like you're picking and choosing things to respond to. And I'd much rather keep my three dollars than pay for any of the words you've said in this thread.
 
I'm not sure where any of this is going, or what the intended hostility from a certain poster is trying to achieve here, but Knife Saber's physics has been and remains correct.

Here's a simple explanation without the so-called three dollar words. It's written at a nice, secondary school level.

I believe it backs up Knife Saber pretty well. Of course, if you're a person just looking to start a fight over nothing, I'm sure this will provide no value.

Cheers.
 
What Knife Saber has posted is exactly in-line with what our physics teachers said, FWIW.

I think they might need to add some "super glue" to the shuttle "repair kit"! :)
 
710BMFAN said:
I guess that means a centrifuge is a "Pseudo" device used in laboratories across the world. What a dink!
Click to expand...

I admit the term "pseudo-force" is inaccurate, hence the problem you are having trying to understand it. The correct term is that centrifugal is an "inertial force".

There are "real" forces (that can be associated with a particular body inside a system) and inertial forces, abstract forces useful to analyze systems under acceleration. That is against the common sense? Well, that's a frequent thing in physics.

By the way, I didn't invent this distinction between real and inertial forces, I've checked these concepts in a physics book written by Robert Resnick and David Halliday, I'm sure you can find it also.


Jaime Orozco.
 
Wow, the rocket explanation has little to nothing to do with the subject. Obviously mass changes when you change the object. Mass, however, does not change relevant to gravity.

-Duffin
 
Duffin444 said:
Wow, the rocket explanation has little to nothing to do with the subject. Obviously mass changes when you change the object. Mass, however, does not change relevant to gravity.
Click to expand...

Your original comment reads both ways... I received email on it, even. You are correct that mass remains a constant as a measure... "mass" is a constant. But mass of an object can change as it adds or loses matter.

The rocket is the simplest example I could come up with of an object's changing its mass in an obvious way. Sorry if my 'to be clear' wasn't at all clear.
 
Hate to break it to you guys, but mass isn't constant. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. This is why, according to the general theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of force to exceed the speed of light.

Newton's second law, F=ma, only applies to objects moving so slow that the theory of relativity can be disregarded. However, to objects approaching the speed of light, the amount of force required to accelerate an object is a more complex issue and becomes asymptotic at the speed of light.

Further corollaries reveal that E=mc^2, as mass and energy are interchangable and increasing an object's kinetic energy will increase its mass.
 
The effect that the small amount of velocity has on the space shuttles mass is totally negligible. I don't even know why it was brought up.

-Duffin
 
It was brought up in the interest of three dollar words, or six dollar hanburgers or something like that. I think therefore I am, in which case some folks just might not be. Think about it!

Peace,

710BMFAN
 
I also heard that a small bump by a spacewalking astronaut could cause unrepairable damage. I am surprised that a vechicle designed to take the stress of re-entry could be in some ways so delicate. You'd have to pay a whole lot of money to get me to fly in one of those things. :eek: ;) :p :)
 
You have just got to wonder why there can't be a one piece shield placed on the bottom of those birds.
 
710BMFAN said:
You have just got to wonder why there can't be a one piece shield placed on the bottom of those birds.
Click to expand...

Probably for maintenance. The shuttle tiles take damage every trip, and it's probably more cost-effective to do tile-by-tile replacements than deal with a large one piece structure. There's also the fact that they're ceramic, and perhaps unacceptably brittle in a larger pieces. Here's an article on possible replacements, if you're interested:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/shuttle_tps_030307.html

Regarding your prior post: Three dollar words make the world go round. And six dollar hamburgers are just part of life here in expensive ol' NYC.

Glad that the physics debate appears to be over and done with. What an odd place for it to happen, though...
 
Sometimes odd is good. My favorite response was:

My friend has two rabbits.

WHo the hell can't like that!!

Peace

710BMFAN
 
Duffin444 said:
The effect that the small amount of velocity has on the space shuttles mass is totally negligible. I don't even know why it was brought up.

-Duffin
Click to expand...
Just for fun, I suppose. Besides, it gave 710BMFAN another opportunity to enrich us with his vast wisdom.
 
710BMFAN said:
Sometimes odd is good. My favorite response was:

My friend has two rabbits.

WHo the hell can't like that!!

Peace

710BMFAN
Click to expand...


Just following an otherwise entertaining thread, when i came across buddy's statement of,
My friend has two rabbits.

I damn near blew coffee over my monitor this morning after that,LMAO.

Thanks for today's smile on my face guys.

WR
 
710BMFAN said:
You have just got to wonder why there can't be a one piece shield placed on the bottom of those birds.
Click to expand...

I think the reason is that different parts of the shuttle are subjected to diffferent levels of heat stress on re-entry and there are many varied tiles in various places that are specialized to handle the differing heat stress. It would be almost impossible to build a one-piece shield that could accomplish the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top